Hearing some negative remarks from SAR operators already; they are all pointing out that the C-295 has a shorter range and is slower than the C-130H's being used as SAR aircraft right now, and they need that range and speed.

I'm also reading that the number of aircraft to be actually procured is not fixed; originally, it was supposed to be 17 aircraft. Now, it could be less, all depending on the budget and what the contractor proposed.

Excellent choice, the C-235/295 family has already made a name for itself in the MPA/SAR/over-water operations role.

ThePointblank wrote:

Hearing some negative remarks from SAR operators already; they are all pointing out that the C-295 has a shorter range and is slower than the C-130H's being used as SAR aircraft right now, and they need that range and speed.

It's faster and has significantly more range than the DHC-5 Buffalo, so whats the problem?

It's faster and has significantly more range than the DHC-5 Buffalo, so whats the problem?

It's slower, has less range, and the cargo area has limited head height compared to the C-130H, the aircraft that's currently being used across practically all across Canada except for the Victoria SAR region.

It's slower, has less range, and the cargo area has limited head height compared to the C-130H, the aircraft that's currently being used across practically all across Canada except for the Victoria SAR region.

Well obviously the competent personnel in the Canadian DND, RCAF and Public Services Procurement Canada have decided that it is fast enough, has enough range and can carry enough cargo to replace the CC-130H. It will get a much better sensor package too.

Hearing some negative remarks from SAR operators already; they are all pointing out that the C-295 has a shorter range and is slower than the C-130H's being used as SAR aircraft right now, and they need that range and speed.

I'm also reading that the number of aircraft to be actually procured is not fixed; originally, it was supposed to be 17 aircraft. Now, it could be less, all depending on the budget and what the contractor proposed.

This plane is only replacing the older C-130s and the DHC-5 Buffalo. The newer generation Herc's will still be flying for quite a while.

As for the range, I don't see an issue.

When conducting SAR ops, the plane wont have much payload, and therefore should be nowhere near MTOW, so the range during SAR ops should be around 4,500-5,000 km. That's plenty !

Speed wise, I don't see an issue either.

Max cruise speed of 260 kts. Besides, when conducting SAR ops, you have a tendency to go slow, not fast, in order to find what you are looking for.

Well obviously the competent personnel in the Canadian DND, RCAF and Public Services Procurement Canada have decided that it is fast enough, has enough range and can carry enough cargo to replace the CC-130H. It will get a much better sensor package too.

us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!

So Airbus is saying they can fulfill the contract with 16 aircraft, 1 less than the original RFP called for although now it was up to the provider to provide the correct number of aircraft . I hope we don't get into a situation similar to what we faced with the CH-149 Cormorant..Not enough serviceable frames in the fleet to maintain SAR coverage, originally 15 aircraft down to 14 with the loss of one.

I don't think the speed on station for a SAR event is what the concern was...but the ability to get there quickly. Don't forget the SAR area provided by Trenton is absolutely massive.

I wonder if these will replace the C-130's doing double-duty transport and SAR? Do they still do that? I go to Trenton a few times a year, but for my own purposes. (The C-130 'boneyard' is....interesting...)

I don't think the speed on station for a SAR event is what the concern was...but the ability to get there quickly. Don't forget the SAR area provided by Trenton is absolutely massive.

You've hit the nail on the head. Speed on station isn't a concern; range and speed for transit IS a concern, especially with the large SAR areas being covered. The Trenton SAR region for example covers the entire Canadian Arctic, to the western half of Quebec, and the entirety of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. And the birds have to fly from either CFB Trenton in Ontario or CFB Winnipeg to cover this area. With the C-295, if there is a call to the Arctic, the aircraft will have to make a refueling stop enroute as the aircraft doesn't have the legs to fly to the Arctic and conduct a search. The C-130H's can.

jalarner wrote:

I wonder if these will replace the C-130's doing double-duty transport and SAR? Do they still do that? I go to Trenton a few times a year, but for my own purposes. (The C-130 'boneyard' is....interesting...)

Yes; FWSAR was about replacing the CC-115's and the C-130H's doing SAR duties. That's the issue; the specifications were originally 3/4 Herc, 1/4 Buffalo as how the fleet was already allocated, so naturally, the specs were more Herc like than Buffalo. And some proponents cried fowl over that.

From my reading and chatting, these are some of the thoughts according to the operators:

1. They are glad that they are getting something, anything to replace the CC-115 Buffalo's doing SAR duty. The Victoria SAR people are happy about that, as it means they don't have out of 6 aircraft sitting on the ramp, only 1 barely serviceable aircraft for SAR duty.

2. The operators are NOT happy to loose the C-130H's doing SAR duty, more on this below.

3. The operators are not happy with the C-295's cargo bay; while it is longer than the C-130H's cargo bay, it is narrower, and shorter. A typical adult person has trouble standing in the cargo bay of the C-295; this is not an aircraft for tall SAR operators and load masters working in the back. SAR operators are going to struggle with getting their equipment on with how tight it is in the aircraft.

4. There are concerns with whom is going to operate the sensor package that's supposedly coming with the aircraft; not enough sensor operators are employed by the CF to fill the role, and there's not enough in the training pipeline to fill the roles as the aircraft are delivered. They may have to take people away from the CP-140 Aurora MPA community to fill the sensor operator role for a while, but the Aurora MPA community doesn't have anyone to spare to send to the SAR community. The main constraint is training; not enough resources to train new people to fill sensor operator roles.

5. They are happy that the aircraft is pressurized; big boon for crew comfort during transit, as it means they can fly high and fast without the need to don oxygen masks.

6. There are concerns regarding field deployments of the C-295; the aircraft as proposed doesn't have an APU to provide power while on the ground. It's only an option, and one that Airbus didn't offer. The engine does have a propeller brake, but it's not really the same thing.

7. The range of the C-295 is a major concern. One scenario of note in the requirements where the C-295's lack of range is going to be felt immensely is a potential SAR event in the Halifax SAR region out at the very far edge at 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W out in the mid-Atlantic. The current C-130H's have a max search area that allows the aircraft to fly from Greenwood, NS, fly out that far, and cover an area from Labrador to Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, and recover in the UK without any problems. The new aircraft is supposed to have a small fraction of the possible maximum search area. Sounds like this was another area where the requirements really got cut back, and could lead to another Ocean Ranger like disaster in the future.

8. No one is really sure what's going to happen with the C-130H fleet that's doing SAR right now; this fleet currently does double duty as SAR and tactical transport, and the secondary transport role is an important one. Will some of them be retained for the secondary role, or will there be another aircraft purchased to replace it? Most of the CF C-130H fleet were delivered in the 1960's and they have been heavily used since. It is expected that the CC-115 Buffalo's will be disposed of; too old, and too much an orphan that's incredibly difficult to support today.

3. The operators are not happy with the C-295's cargo bay; while it is longer than the C-130H's cargo bay, it is narrower, and shorter. A typical adult person has trouble standing in the cargo bay of the C-295; this is not an aircraft for tall SAR operators and load masters working in the back. SAR operators are going to struggle with getting their equipment on with how tight it is in the aircraft.

Since this is not true I am asking if you could give us all examples of what you mean.

Normal sized people can walk around in it and you can drive a Hummer into the bay.

6. There are concerns regarding field deployments of the C-295; the aircraft as proposed doesn't have an APU to provide power while on the ground. It's only an option, and one that Airbus didn't offer. The engine does have a propeller brake, but it's not really the same thing.

7. The range of the C-295 is a major concern. One scenario of note in the requirements where the C-295's lack of range is going to be felt immensely is a potential SAR event in the Halifax SAR region out at the very far edge at 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W out in the mid-Atlantic. The current C-130H's have a max search area that allows the aircraft to fly from Greenwood, NS, fly out that far, and cover an area from Labrador to Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, and recover in the UK without any problems. The new aircraft is supposed to have a small fraction of the possible maximum search area. Sounds like this was another area where the requirements really got cut back, and could lead to another Ocean Ranger like disaster in the future.

6. How is a propeller brake not the same thing?

7. The C-130Js and P-3s will still be around. Besides, the C-295 (non-wingletted version) has enough range to reach 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W and return if you refuel in St. Johns. It has a range of up to 4600 km. That's enough to get it all the way to Zürich or Stockholm if necessary.

3. The operators are not happy with the C-295's cargo bay; while it is longer than the C-130H's cargo bay, it is narrower, and shorter. A typical adult person has trouble standing in the cargo bay of the C-295; this is not an aircraft for tall SAR operators and load masters working in the back. SAR operators are going to struggle with getting their equipment on with how tight it is in the aircraft.

Since this is not true I am asking if you could give us all examples of what you mean.

Normal sized people can walk around in it and you can drive a Hummer into the bay.

So, no you can't get a hard top HMMVW into the back of a C-295. You can in a C-27J.

The average height of an adult male in Canada is 5ft, 9 in, but the average height of a CF SAR operator is higher. Even at average height, a SAR operator will have to duck their head while standing up inside to put on parachutes, helmets, etc.

The average height of an adult male in Canada is 5ft, 9 in, but the average height of a CF SAR operator is higher. Even at average height, a SAR operator will have to duck their head while standing up inside to put on parachutes, helmets, etc.

So the C-295, an aircraft used to drop paratroopers throughout the world, is the wrong choice because the SAR operators who will be sitting down in ergonomic seats for most of the flight (and are on average higher than 190 cm, says an anonymous A.netter with no links to back it up) will have to duck their heads for the last few minutes before jumping. Right.

6. There are concerns regarding field deployments of the C-295; the aircraft as proposed doesn't have an APU to provide power while on the ground. It's only an option, and one that Airbus didn't offer. The engine does have a propeller brake, but it's not really the same thing.

7. The range of the C-295 is a major concern. One scenario of note in the requirements where the C-295's lack of range is going to be felt immensely is a potential SAR event in the Halifax SAR region out at the very far edge at 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W out in the mid-Atlantic. The current C-130H's have a max search area that allows the aircraft to fly from Greenwood, NS, fly out that far, and cover an area from Labrador to Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, and recover in the UK without any problems. The new aircraft is supposed to have a small fraction of the possible maximum search area. Sounds like this was another area where the requirements really got cut back, and could lead to another Ocean Ranger like disaster in the future.

6. How is a propeller brake not the same thing?

7. The C-130Js and P-3s will still be around. Besides, the C-295 (non-wingletted version) has enough range to reach 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W and return if you refuel in St. Johns. It has a range of up to 4600 km. That's enough to get it all the way to Zürich or Stockholm if necessary.

1. Fuel economy, especially in places where the ability to refuel may be limited due to lack of fuel at the airfield or lack of time. For example, one scenario is for the FWSAR platform to land at a nearby airfield and wait for the rescue helicopter to meet up to transfer patients to be flown to a more distant location. The FWSAR platform will need to sit on the tarmac without any external support while waiting for the helicopter to arrive. Running an engine is inherently more fuel inefficient verses an APU, along with the resulting increased wear and tear on the engine.

Another concern: Safety. If there is the chance to refuel, refueling an aircraft while its engine is running isn't a very safe idea. There's also the possibility of the propeller brake failing while the engine is running, and if that happens, better hope no one or anything is in the vicinity of the props. People have either been killed or seriously hurt because of this on other aircraft.

Also, tailwinds pose a problem for any aircraft that uses a propeller brake, as the engine will need to be closely monitored for overheating; if it does overheat, you need to completely shut down and run on the battery. If that happens and there is no external support to help restart the engine, you are SOL. This however can be managed if the wind direction remains constant and the direction is known.

One more concern: noise. Running the engine while the propeller brake is engaged is noisy, compared to an aircraft running off the APU.

2. The C-130J's are all tactical transports first, and 17 of them isn't enough to cover both the transport role and provide backup coverage for SAR. We had 32 C-130's to provide transport duties, and they are only being followed by 17 C-130J's. The E's are now all gone, and the H's are very old, with no clear plans regarding their future.

And, the CP-140 Aurora fleet is positively small as we don't have enough to cover all of the coast in its primary role of maritime patrol.

VSMUT wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

The average height of an adult male in Canada is 5ft, 9 in, but the average height of a CF SAR operator is higher. Even at average height, a SAR operator will have to duck their head while standing up inside to put on parachutes, helmets, etc.

So the C-295, an aircraft used to drop paratroopers throughout the world, is the wrong choice because the SAR operators who will be sitting down in ergonomic seats for most of the flight (and are on average higher than 190 cm, says an anonymous A.netter with no links to back it up) will have to duck their heads for the last few minutes before jumping. Right.

There's a massive difference between a SAR tech that's fully kitted out to jump to a rescue, and how most nations use the C-295 for jumps. Load a C-295 with paratroopers, complete with their rucksacks, weapons etc and see how much space there is inside the aircraft. The C-27J is shorter, but the cargo bay is both wider and taller. You can drive a M113 APC into a C-27J no problem, and still have side access throughout the cargo bay.

I've been inside both the C-27J and the C-295; I'm able to stand comfortably in a C-27J, no problem. In the C-295, I risk the potential of bumping my head into something while I am standing up straight, and I'm slightly taller than average.

And no, SAR techs are usually not sitting down in a seat for most of the flight, they are standing up and configuring and organizing their equipment throughout the flight. They are actively working while the aircraft is in flight.

SAR techs are a very peculiar bunch; they are absolute pack rats. A SAR-equipped C-130 or CC-115 is absolutely packed to the gills with gear, depending on the type of rescue. Anything from generators, toboggans, sleds, ATV's, SKAD's, or anything they can stick on a pallet to be dropped out of the back. It is also expected that the FWSAR platform be used to also carry stretchers and supplies to and from a disaster site; say if the Big One hits the West Coast.

6. There are concerns regarding field deployments of the C-295; the aircraft as proposed doesn't have an APU to provide power while on the ground. It's only an option, and one that Airbus didn't offer. The engine does have a propeller brake, but it's not really the same thing.

7. The range of the C-295 is a major concern. One scenario of note in the requirements where the C-295's lack of range is going to be felt immensely is a potential SAR event in the Halifax SAR region out at the very far edge at 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W out in the mid-Atlantic. The current C-130H's have a max search area that allows the aircraft to fly from Greenwood, NS, fly out that far, and cover an area from Labrador to Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, and recover in the UK without any problems. The new aircraft is supposed to have a small fraction of the possible maximum search area. Sounds like this was another area where the requirements really got cut back, and could lead to another Ocean Ranger like disaster in the future.

6. How is a propeller brake not the same thing?

7. The C-130Js and P-3s will still be around. Besides, the C-295 (non-wingletted version) has enough range to reach 51 degrees N, 30 degrees W and return if you refuel in St. Johns. It has a range of up to 4600 km. That's enough to get it all the way to Zürich or Stockholm if necessary.

1. Fuel economy, especially in places where the ability to refuel may be limited due to lack of fuel at the airfield or lack of time. For example, one scenario is for the FWSAR platform to land at a nearby airfield and wait for the rescue helicopter to meet up to transfer patients to be flown to a more distant location. The FWSAR platform will need to sit on the tarmac without any external support while waiting for the helicopter to arrive. Running an engine is inherently more fuel inefficient verses an APU, along with the resulting increased wear and tear on the engine.

Another concern: Safety. If there is the chance to refuel, refueling an aircraft while its engine is running isn't a very safe idea. There's also the possibility of the propeller brake failing while the engine is running, and if that happens, better hope no one or anything is in the vicinity of the props. People have either been killed or seriously hurt because of this on other aircraft.

Also, tailwinds pose a problem for any aircraft that uses a propeller brake, as the engine will need to be closely monitored for overheating; if it does overheat, you need to completely shut down and run on the battery. If that happens and there is no external support to help restart the engine, you are SOL. This however can be managed if the wind direction remains constant and the direction is known.

One more concern: noise. Running the engine while the propeller brake is engaged is noisy, compared to an aircraft running off the APU.

2. The C-130J's are all tactical transports first, and 17 of them isn't enough to cover both the transport role and provide backup coverage for SAR. We had 32 C-130's to provide transport duties, and they are only being followed by 17 C-130J's. The E's are now all gone, and the H's are very old, with no clear plans regarding their future.

And, the CP-140 Aurora fleet is positively small as we don't have enough to cover all of the coast in its primary role of maritime patrol.

VSMUT wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

The average height of an adult male in Canada is 5ft, 9 in, but the average height of a CF SAR operator is higher. Even at average height, a SAR operator will have to duck their head while standing up inside to put on parachutes, helmets, etc.

So the C-295, an aircraft used to drop paratroopers throughout the world, is the wrong choice because the SAR operators who will be sitting down in ergonomic seats for most of the flight (and are on average higher than 190 cm, says an anonymous A.netter with no links to back it up) will have to duck their heads for the last few minutes before jumping. Right.

There's a massive difference between a SAR tech that's fully kitted out to jump to a rescue, and how most nations use the C-295 for jumps. Load a C-295 with paratroopers, complete with their rucksacks, weapons etc and see how much space there is inside the aircraft. The C-27J is shorter, but the cargo bay is both wider and taller. You can drive a M113 APC into a C-27J no problem, and still have side access throughout the cargo bay.

I've been inside both the C-27J and the C-295; I'm able to stand comfortably in a C-27J, no problem. In the C-295, I risk the potential of bumping my head into something while I am standing up straight, and I'm slightly taller than average.

And no, SAR techs are usually not sitting down in a seat for most of the flight, they are standing up and configuring and organizing their equipment throughout the flight. They are actively working while the aircraft is in flight.

SAR techs are a very peculiar bunch; they are absolute pack rats. A SAR-equipped C-130 or CC-115 is absolutely packed to the gills with gear, depending on the type of rescue. Anything from generators, toboggans, sleds, ATV's, SKAD's, or anything they can stick on a pallet to be dropped out of the back. It is also expected that the FWSAR platform be used to also carry stretchers and supplies to and from a disaster site; say if the Big One hits the West Coast.

Can't comment too much on this as I haven't been following this too closely, but in regards to a prop brake, for all intents and purposes it's an APU.

I know on our ATR's, when hotel mode is engaged it's considered an APU, and refuelling with it running is not considered a hot refuel. Obviously ground power is preferred, but it's not a big deal. Of course no one is going to be permitted to walk near the prop with the engine running, in case the prop brake were to fail.

In terms of fuel, I wouldn't think that's a big concern. At those small northern stations, they will NOTAM that fuel is avail for medevac only if they are running low, and the other operators up there will be forced to tech stop at other stations for fuel. Happens all the time in the arctic.

Again, I can't really comment on the other logistical challenges, but a prop brake shouldn't be a deal breaker by any means.

Can't comment too much on this as I haven't been following this too closely, but in regards to a prop brake, for all intents and purposes it's an APU.

It is indeed, and apart from being more noisy, does the exact same job as a dedicated APU, and is much simpler too.

diverted wrote:

I know on our ATR's, when hotel mode is engaged it's considered an APU, and refuelling with it running is not considered a hot refuel. Obviously ground power is preferred, but it's not a big deal. Of course no one is going to be permitted to walk near the prop with the engine running, in case the prop brake were to fail.

ATRs shouldn't be refueled in hotel mode, the FCOM states that quite specifically. Airbus does however state that the C-295 is capable of hot refueling.

ThePointblank wrote:

Another concern: Safety. If there is the chance to refuel, refueling an aircraft while its engine is running isn't a very safe idea. There's also the possibility of the propeller brake failing while the engine is running, and if that happens, better hope no one or anything is in the vicinity of the props. People have either been killed or seriously hurt because of this on other aircraft.

I am extremely familiar with the PW-127 family, and I have never heard of a prop brake failure on a well maintained engine. The most common occurrence is that worn out brake discs start slipping, but any competent MRO facility should catch that before it happens.

ThePointblank wrote:

Also, tailwinds pose a problem for any aircraft that uses a propeller brake, as the engine will need to be closely monitored for overheating; if it does overheat, you need to completely shut down and run on the battery. If that happens and there is no external support to help restart the engine, you are SOL.

Any pilot knows that an aircraft should be parked with its nose into the wind. The tailwind/nacelle overheat issue is related to civil airports where they have to park at a gate or stand, not some barren airfield in the Canadian north. The starter on the C-295 is also electrical and can be started by the battery, so again, a non-issue unless you waste all the electricity.

ThePointblank wrote:

The C-130J's are all tactical transports first, and 17 of them isn't enough to cover both the transport role and provide backup coverage for SAR.

Not a problem, the Canadian government is stepping down it's international commitments.

ThePointblank wrote:

Running an engine is inherently more fuel inefficient verses an APU, along with the resulting increased wear and tear on the engine.

The same engine on the ATR has a fuel burn of 110 kg/h in hotel mode. The APU on the Dash-8Q400 uses between 100 and 150 kg/h.

It is indeed, and apart from being more noisy, does the exact same job as a dedicated APU, and is much simpler too.

However, more prone to a significant failure. Note that of the other civilian turboprop aircraft, only the ATR series comes only with a propeller brake; the Dash-8 and Saab 2000 have APU's, the Fokker 50 has it as an option. It's not a very popular feature for end users.

VSMUT wrote:

I am extremely familiar with the PW-127 family, and I have never heard of a prop brake failure on a well maintained engine. The most common occurrence is that worn out brake discs start slipping, but any competent MRO facility should catch that before it happens.

I'm aware of a number of companies that operate ATR's have discouraged the use of hotel mode on the ATR's due to uncommanded releases of the propeller. There's also a documented gearbox fire caused by the prop brake on a ATR; look up ASRS report # 559337 as an example.

VSMUT wrote:

Any pilot knows that an aircraft should be parked with its nose into the wind. The tailwind/nacelle overheat issue is related to civil airports where they have to park at a gate or stand, not some barren airfield in the Canadian north. The starter on the C-295 is also electrical and can be started by the battery, so again, a non-issue unless you waste all the electricity.

The issue is that depending on the airfield, that may not be an option, and of course, if the aircraft dispatches with an known unserviceable prop brake or even if it is discovered that the prop brake is not functional during a mission, it severely limits the options.

VSMUT wrote:

Not a problem, the Canadian government is stepping down it's international commitments.

Domestic requirements use the existing transport fleet very heavily. With the C-130E and H fleets, we had the highest time C-130's anywhere on the planet. I believe one C-130E in RCAF service flew for over 45,000 hours in its 40 years of service, mostly on domestic missions, from BOXTOP flights and training missions. That bird is now a ground instructional airframe.

Don't get me wrong; the C-295 is a fantastic aircraft, and is miles better than the DHC-5's the RCAF has now on the West Coast. But it is a poor C-130 replacement due to limitations in range, speed, and internal volume for the rest of Canada. The operators have a lot of concerns regarding the C-295 in its suitability for the type of SAR ops we do with the existing aircraft due to Canada's unique operating environment; we are trying to provide SAR coverage for the second biggest country in the world, and the one with the longest coastline in the world. I think the only country that does anything similar to what the RCAF does are the Americans, and they use the HC-130 as their primary platform for para-rescue operations.

An added benefit that hasn't been mentioned, is that the ATR-42 is rapidly replacing the 737-200 as the aircraft of choice for civilian operators in the Canadian north. The ATR shares a lot of systems and parts with the C-295. Getting spares away from home will be much simpler.

ThePointblank wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

It is indeed, and apart from being more noisy, does the exact same job as a dedicated APU, and is much simpler too.

However, more prone to a significant failure. Note that of the other civilian turboprop aircraft, only the ATR series comes only with a propeller brake; the Dash-8 and Saab 2000 have APU's, the Fokker 50 has it as an option. It's not a very popular feature for end users.

Statistics and reports from flight crew show that the APU in the Q-400 is extremely unreliable and prone to breakdowns. The ATR's hotel mode on the other hand is extremely reliable.

ThePointblank wrote:

There's also a documented gearbox fire caused by the prop brake on a ATR; look up ASRS report # 559337 as an example.

It took place in the US in 2009, hence there is a 99% chance that the aircraft was an American Eagle aircraft, and they belong firmly in the above mentioned old and clapped out, and possibly not quite so well maintained category. US ATR operators aren't exactly well known for their fleets of young ATRs, and ATRs returned to the leasing company from American Eagle have proven to be a constant nightmare for all subsequent users.

Statistics and reports from flight crew show that the APU in the Q-400 is extremely unreliable and prone to breakdowns. The ATR's hotel mode on the other hand is extremely reliable.

Operators also frequently avoid using hotel mode for extended periods (usually until ground power is available) on the ATR as well. Many other carriers have actually disabled the ability to use hotel mode on the ATR, preferring to use ground power when possible.

SAR operators frequently fly into air strips where ground equipment, such as power carts, aren't available. And it is not just in the north; there are also small air strips in BC and Ontario with very limited ground support facilities that SAR aircraft might have to stop at to perform their missions. Being able to retain the ability to operate from remote air strips without any ground equipment to do things like patient transfers is very much something that SAR operators would like to continue.

From my reading of the matter, it seems the C-295 won on the basis of cost and the new Value proposition format, which allowed Industrial Regional Benefits to dictate the decision, not because it was the better aircraft. The C-27J was the better aircraft, as it's faster, has a more efficient cargo area, more range, better cockpit visibility, and better STOL capabilities. It just wasn't the cheapest option, or the one that had the most Canadian content.

Mind you, the gold standard would have been more C-130J's.

VSMUT wrote:

It took place in the US in 2009, hence there is a 99% chance that the aircraft was an American Eagle aircraft, and they belong firmly in the above mentioned old and clapped out, and possibly not quite so well maintained category. US ATR operators aren't exactly well known for their fleets of young ATRs, and ATRs returned to the leasing company from American Eagle have proven to be a constant nightmare for all subsequent users.

Actually, it took place in 2002. There's also another reported incident in 2007 that caused another engine fire as well.

Leonardo is citing that the C-295W first doesn't meet one of the technical requirements (range), and second, doesn't meet the cost requirements (total contract including support must not exceed $3.4 billion).

Can't comment too much on this as I haven't been following this too closely, but in regards to a prop brake, for all intents and purposes it's an APU.

It is indeed, and apart from being more noisy, does the exact same job as a dedicated APU, and is much simpler too.

diverted wrote:

I know on our ATR's, when hotel mode is engaged it's considered an APU, and refuelling with it running is not considered a hot refuel. Obviously ground power is preferred, but it's not a big deal. Of course no one is going to be permitted to walk near the prop with the engine running, in case the prop brake were to fail.

ATRs shouldn't be refueled in hotel mode, the FCOM states that quite specifically. Airbus does however state that the C-295 is capable of hot refueling.

Apologies that I'm 2 months late to reply to this...

Just looked through our FOM regarding Hot refuelling

-All non-essential crew and pax must deplane any time the aircraft is undergoing hot refuelling. (F/A's are considered non-essential)

NOTE: When the ATR42 is operating in Hotel Mode the engine is considered to be an APU. Fuelling while in Hotel Mode is NOT considered hot refuelling"

Obviously I can't be posting pages of our FOM on the net, but trust me it's in there.

ThePointblank wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Statistics and reports from flight crew show that the APU in the Q-400 is extremely unreliable and prone to breakdowns. The ATR's hotel mode on the other hand is extremely reliable.

Operators also frequently avoid using hotel mode for extended periods (usually until ground power is available) on the ATR as well. Many other carriers have actually disabled the ability to use hotel mode on the ATR, preferring to use ground power when possible.

SAR operators frequently fly into air strips where ground equipment, such as power carts, aren't available. And it is not just in the north; there are also small air strips in BC and Ontario with very limited ground support facilities that SAR aircraft might have to stop at to perform their missions. Being able to retain the ability to operate from remote air strips without any ground equipment to do things like patient transfers is very much something that SAR operators would like to continue.

Agree to an extent. Our FOM says Hotel mode should only be considered if there will be significant delays in obtaining ground power and air cart, or if it's unavailable."

Only limitations is that the aircraft can't be left unattended while in hotel mode, and not to run in hotel mode in anticipation of being towed.

I've flown into places on the ATR that had no ground power. Seemed to be a non issue. I don't see why that would be any different for SAR.

The Pointblank,Thanks for posting my article. I used to work SAR with the CCG plus 442 Sqn in Comox, so I have a passion for the subject and connections with the field. Word in the SAR community is they will make do with the Airbus as it's better than nothing. The Buffalos will be @60 years old by the time they're replaced (if that actually happens). They are tough old birds and decent for maintaining but the saga of replacing them has been ridiculous. The probable main reason for the decision was money as this aircraft was the cheapest option up front. Another issue though is it isn't interoperable with the rest of the RCAF fleets whereas the Spartan would have dovetailed in as a 'Baby' Herc, which would have saved money downstream.

SAR isn't as sexy as refugees and wasn't an election item this last cycle and the RCAF will be saddled with an inadequate aircraft.

A spokesperson for Leonardo, LGen(Ret'd) Steve Lucas, spent some time with me explaining the Spartan team's positions with respect to their opposition to the contract being awarded to Airbus. Their main points were:

1. The C295W is unable to complete all SAR missions in a single crew day.2. The C295W does not have an APU and coupled with its slower speed would place the aircrew in a dangerous situation if they were at the extreme ocean edges of Canada's SAR zones.

In addition, the Spartan bid came in at the contract specifications while the Airbus bid was $1.3B over wrt the in-service maintenance on the back end. For the full interview and LGen(Ret'd) Lucas' position see the link below:

The C-130J are not suited for terrain searching in the mountains. The stall speed is too high making the spotters useless. Even with all the sensors available today, the Mark I eyeball is still superior at finding crash sites in rough terrain.

Also, it's best to go with a one fleet solution for a small country like Canada. It's similar to the issues the RCAF will have flying CF-18s and the Super Hornets. Unlike Hollywood, you just can't bounce between aircraft. I knew techs and aircrew 'stuck' in Comox, BC for close to 20 years because they work and fly the Buffalo. You're not supposed to do your entire career in one posting.

Considering that the RCAF is getting 17 Super Hercules anyway, I do not see what speaks against some more frames for SAR in addition to the C-295W as a Buffalo replacement.

I'm hearing that the C-295W is not a good platform for performing SAR period. There will be significant downgrades in response capability compared to the existing aircraft, and there are concerns about safety and flexibility from the SAR operator community with the aircraft as well.

The C-295 is shorter in height in the cargo compartment, meaning that SAR operators need to either duck constantly while standing up, which could lead to permanent, long term back injuries for SAR crews. Imagine 3 SAR Tech's in the back of a DHC-5, all at about 6ft tall trying to work around each other to prepare for a jump surrounded by equipment while carrying 265lbs of equipment on them. The DHC-5 is about 78-82 inches in the back. The C-295 is only 75 inches in the back; imagine the same scenario in a shorter aircraft.

The C-295 has a lower power to weight ratio compared to the Buffalo, with 2x 1,972 kW engines at a maximum take off weight of 23,200 kg. The DHC-5 has 2x 2,336 kW engines moving an aircraft at a maximum take off weight of 22,316 kg. Less power to weight means that if you suddenly need power to quickly climb, the DHC-5 will climb faster. There are already concerns being stated by a number of SAR operators and pilots regarding the lack of power in the C-295, especially for a one engine out scenario in mountainous terrain.

The C-295 needs a longer take off run compared to the DHC-5, about double of the DHC-5.

The C-295 has known issues flying into icing conditions (there's already been a crash with the C-295 that flew into icing conditions a few years back). Hello, aircraft with known problems going into icing conditions and it is supposed to fly in Canadian SAR Regions? Just asking for trouble.

Being told that the C-295 doesn't have enough electrical power to operate both the de-icing systems AND the expected sensor payload at the same time; it can either do one or the other. So you can either have the de-icing gear running, or you can have your sensors. Can't have both.

Collectively, the C-295 probably won't be able to do the same things the DHC-5 could do, such as performing valley shoots and close contouring.

The C-295 has known issues flying into icing conditions (there's already been a crash with the C-295 that flew into icing conditions a few years back). Hello, aircraft with known problems going into icing conditions and it is supposed to fly in Canadian SAR Regions? Just asking for trouble.

Yeah, because the C295s sister, the ATR, certainly isn't widespread in Canada...

FYI, I've been flying ATRs in icing conditions all winter. The icing thing is mostly a myth, assuming you operate the aircraft correctly. I am quite certain that the same goes for the C295.

ThePointblank wrote:

Being told that the C-295 doesn't have enough electrical power to operate both the de-icing systems AND the expected sensor payload at the same time; it can either do one or the other. So you can either have the de-icing gear running, or you can have your sensors. Can't have both.

The C-295's sister aircraft, the C-235, cannot run de-icing systems AND the onboard mission systems at the same time as configured with the USCG.

VSMUT wrote:

The C295 is a tried and tested product in this role. It is the gold standard. The C-27J by comparison has only ever been used as a tactical cargo plane.

Wrong. The C-295 has never tried to do the fixed wing SAR mission, like how Canada intends on operating them. Every else uses the C-295 either as a maritime patrol aircraft, or as a airlifter.

Using the platform as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft is not the same as using it as a Search and Rescue aircraft, where SAR Techs will be moving around in the back with all their gear and parachuting off the back.

I would re-read the article posted by HappyDiver. The articles are written by the SAR guys themselves; the C-295 will come up short. If and when they do, people's lives are at risk. The CASA bird is slower, significantly slower than the C-27J, and also slower than what the requirements have set out. As noted by the article:

So how did the C295W with its low cruise speed of 244 kts make it through the process? The research and military thinking stipulated an aircraft faster than 300 kts was the sought ideal.

SAR navigator Capt Jacobson is also disturbed by the C295J’s slower speed. Since Canada has elected a single platform solution for FWSAR then it was imperative that the platform selected be able to launch from southern Canada and be able to reach the Far North in no more than 12hrs. The Hercules was just able to do that… the Herc’s speed is 315Kts. So you don’t have to be a mathematical genius to understand that any claims that the CASA 295 could fulfill that requirement were obviously ‘cooked’. The Buffalo’s speed of 220Kts was always a handicap in this SRR… fortunately people operating in the Yukon knew that we were a minimum of 4 to 5 hrs away and they were prepared for it. Of concern in Trenton’s and Halifax’s regions is all the commercial airliner’s transiting our Far North and in addition for Halifax is all the oceanic traffic, both commercial air and marine. I flew the Buffalo out of Summerside years ago and the speed was very much a handicap in servicing that SRR. The CASA’s speed simply does not cut it… this country and its areas of responsibility are simply too vast. There is a solution to this ‘lack of speed’, (ergo ‘longer response time), but it’s an expensive one. The solution would be to base additional aircraft in the Far North (Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Churchill, Iqaluit, etc)… but imagine the extra cost!

RCAF Aircrew, military thinking and DRDC research confirmed the original Air Force stipulation that an aircraft with a cruising speed over 300 kts was required but this requirement was ignored.

On cabin height:

The 2010 NRC SOR document concluded the inclusion of minimum cabin height and width requirements in the SOR was appropriate. The stated requirement for a minimum cabin height of 83 inches in height (210.8 cm) is not supported. Given the importance of minimum cabin dimensions in discriminating between candidate aircraft, it is important that the definition of minimum requirements be based on a sound and comprehensive analysis of accommodation requirements. It is recommended that DND conduct an analysis of the work envelope of SAR Technicians across a complete range of tasks and roles. The NRC spoke with SAR Techs who were happy with the Buffalo’s height range of 78-82”. But the C295J only has a height of 75”.

Capt Jacobson also agrees that the SAR Techs are going to be inconvenienced. The height/diameter of the fuselage of the CASA is way too short!! Have you ever been in the back of the Buffalo when 3 SARTECHs are trying to maneuver around one another once they have all their jump kit on? Each guy is carrying 265 lbs of extra kit and they have to be able to step around one another when they’re preparing to jump. There’s barely enough room in the Buffalo and its ceiling is a good 8 to 9’. The CASA only has about 6’, therefore any SARTECH trying to work back there will be forced to be permanently bent at the waist… this will undoubtedly lead to long-term back ailments for anyone who’s 5’10” and taller. Most of the SARTECHs are near the 6’ mark, so I really feel for them. To me, this small fuselage should’ve ruled out this aircraft as a contender, period.

SAR Techs have enough physical concerns during their career. They don’t need to be needlessly crammed into a small area for hours at a time or worrying about space issues before jumping.

VSMUT wrote:

It was bound to run late and over budget.

Airbus bid and was allowed to overbid for the back end of the contract by $1.3 billion dollars! The Leonardo bid was under budget according to published documents.

The original government “notional” budget (as stated in their published RFP) was $3.4 billion dollars – that was the amount that a contractor could not exceed for the full program up to 2043. The Airbus bid was in fact $4.7B for that period as clearly stated by the government. As the Airbus aircraft is in effect, a stand-alone fleet, with zero interoperability with other RCAF aircraft. There will be a resultant increase in costs due to spare parts, training, operations, tooling, etc with the C-295 compared to the C-27J, which does have some commonality with the C-130J.

The C-295's sister aircraft, the C-235, cannot run de-icing systems AND the onboard mission systems at the same time as configured with the USCG.

So what you were saying was actually a lie. How surprising.

The C-235 is a very different aircraft with much smaller engines. You can't compare the two. You also ignore the fact that other C-295 operators have outfitted theirs with everything from AEW radars to AsuW equipment and so on. It certainly doesn't lack electrical capacity.

ThePointblank wrote:

Wrong. The C-295 has never tried to do the fixed wing SAR mission, like how Canada intends on operating them. Every else uses the C-295 either as a maritime patrol aircraft, or as a airlifter.

Everyone else uses the C-27J as an airlifter only.

ThePointblank wrote:

The articles are written by the SAR guys themselves;

But on the other hand they will get an aircraft that works, which would be a first for the Canadians since they opted to join the F-35 program.

The C-235 is a very different aircraft with much smaller engines. You can't compare the two. You also ignore the fact that other C-295 operators have outfitted theirs with everything from AEW radars to AsuW equipment and so on. It certainly doesn't lack electrical capacity.

The C-235 and the C-295 share a very similar deicing system; leading-edge pneumatic de-icing boots, while the props, engine inlets, windscreens, and flight data sensors are electrically de-iced.

And the two aircraft are almost identical; the C-295 is basically a stretched and uprated version of the C-235.

VSMUT wrote:

Everyone else uses the C-27J as an airlifter only.

Guess what, our FWSAR profile makes extensive use of a tactical airlifter's capabilities to deliver SAR Tech's and their equipment for a SAR response, particularly the STOL capabilities.

Tell me how can a C-295 perform a valley shoot at 130 knots indicated air speed flying nap of earth in a mountain valley, with a steep dive at full flaps into the valley and a sharp climb out at the very end. FYI, that's a fairly standard FWSAR flight profile for conducting a search out in the Victoria SAR region.

The C-295 is questionable in terms of it's ability to fly that sort of profile; it is more similar to the C-130 Hercules, in that the stall speed of the aircraft will be perilously close to the search speed of the aircraft (110 knots). The C-27J's stall speed is about 80-90 knots, which provides a lot of margin before the C-27J will stall, beyond the extra power the C-27J has to quickly add airspeed when needed.

And of course, you are going to argue, why not fly faster than 130 knots? Because flying faster than 130 knots means that for the searchers looking outside the aircraft, all they would see is a blur; it's too fast. If you had a cooperative target, it might work, but it will probably won't work if the only way to spot that an aircraft had crashed into the valley is a single tree with the top toppled over. And sensors are not a good replacement for the human eye and it's ability to spot things that don't quite look right.

VSMUT wrote:

But on the other hand they will get an aircraft that works, which would be a first for the Canadians since they opted to join the F-35 program.

Except the C-295 DOESN'T meet the requirements. Full stop.

The only reason why the C-295 won the competition is because a good chunk of the aircraft is made in Canada; the engines are made in Quebec by Pratt & Whitney Canada, the landing gear was built in Quebec by Heroux-Devtek, the EO/IR camera is built in Ontario by L-3 Wescam, and the simulators are built in Quebec by CAE.

It's too slow to get to a SAR response time (Airbus should never had been allowed to as part of their bid suggested opening more SAR bases across Canada to base aircraft closer to a potential SAR call out as a way to meet the response requirements), too cramped ergonomically for safe operations in the back, doesn't have enough power to perform the mission profile as required, and cost more than what the budget allowed.

Both the RCAF and the NRC have done extensive studies into the requirements of the FWSAR program, and the end result of those studies indicate that the original requirements for in speed and ergonomics were sound. So why are we buying an aircraft that doesn't meet the requirements as set out by the SME's (Subject Matter Experts)?

Are you suggesting that the Air Force can't determine what is the best platform for the lines of taskings they are going to be using a platform for? What are you going to say to a family of a loved one who was lost, but could have been saved if the SAR Techs had reached them an hour sooner?

If the C-295M didn't meet the specifications, it wouldn't have won. It's as simple as that. It's also worth noting that the US uses the C-235 in an SAR role. The C-295M is a better aircraft.

You have no experience how politics can rear its ugly head in Canadian defence procurement to pick a subpar product. The Canadian Forces have been stuck with equipment that doesn't meet specifications or requirements in the recent past just because of politics.

And the USCG uses the C-235 in a different manner compared to how Canada uses the C-130 and CC-115 aircraft; it is used primarily as a search asset. Canada uses the C-130 and CC-115 as both a search asset, and as a first responder aircraft, droping SAR Techs and supplies to a rescue site until a helicopter is in position conduct the actual rescue.

The closest asset the Americans have that does a similar job to our C-130 and CC-115 SAR fleets is the USCG and USAF HC-130 aircraft.

If the C-295M didn't meet the specifications, it wouldn't have won. It's as simple as that. It's also worth noting that the US uses the C-235 in an SAR role. The C-295M is a better aircraft.

You have no experience how politics can rear its ugly head in Canadian defence procurement to pick a subpar product. The Canadian Forces have been stuck with equipment that doesn't meet specifications or requirements in the recent past just because of politics.

And you have no proof of your assertions in this case. The FWSAR project had specifications designed by the National Research Council, and the entire thing was overseen by an international fairness monitor. It was done by the book by all accounts, except for those of the company with sour grapes.

If the C-295M didn't meet the specifications, it wouldn't have won. It's as simple as that. It's also worth noting that the US uses the C-235 in an SAR role. The C-295M is a better aircraft.

You have no experience how politics can rear its ugly head in Canadian defence procurement to pick a subpar product. The Canadian Forces have been stuck with equipment that doesn't meet specifications or requirements in the recent past just because of politics.

And you have no proof of your assertions in this case. The FWSAR project had specifications designed by the National Research Council, and the entire thing was overseen by an international fairness monitor. It was done by the book by all accounts, except for those of the company with sour grapes.

Offsets and VP were part of the criteria. The competitors are scored on a variety of criteria. The aircraft with the most points wins. It's that simple. The rest of it is simply opinion. Whether or not one aircraft can do one or even several things better is irrelevant. Like I said, you've provided nothing that shows that the criteria were not followed. It was all signed off on by a fairness monitor.

Offsets and VP were part of the criteria. The competitors are scored on a variety of criteria. The aircraft with the most points wins. It's that simple. The rest of it is simply opinion. Whether or not one aircraft can do one or even several things better is irrelevant. Like I said, you've provided nothing that shows that the criteria were not followed. It was all signed off on by a fairness monitor.

Except the DRDC research, the RCAF and members of the SAR community clearly thought that the C-295W did not meet requirements as originally intended and laid out.

And that's the main reason why the entire award is now before the courts!

Offsets and VP were part of the criteria. The competitors are scored on a variety of criteria. The aircraft with the most points wins. It's that simple. The rest of it is simply opinion. Whether or not one aircraft can do one or even several things better is irrelevant. Like I said, you've provided nothing that shows that the criteria were not followed. It was all signed off on by a fairness monitor.

Except the DRDC research, the RCAF and members of the SAR community clearly thought that the C-295W did not meet requirements as originally intended and laid out.

And that's the main reason why the entire award is now before the courts!

It is back in the court because the competitor who lost the contracts thinks so. DRDC research, RCAF and members of the SAR community can not sue their own procurement group.

There is a big difference between believing the best solution did not win and thinking that the winning bid did not meet tender specs. It would not be the first time that the tender specs were written in such a way that a non-preferred (by the techies...) supplier won the bid. The whole thing about these contracts are that the ones evaluating the bid are not the once who wrote the spec. I was in a project last year where the preferred supplier (preferred by everyone except procurement) was thrown out as they missed out one mandatory component and tender procedures did not allow an amendment of the bid as this was illegal as it disadvantaged other suppliers who met all mandatory requirements. So for example if the RCAF now thinks that the fuselage is too small, but a minimum diameter was never written in the tender specs, then that does not disqualify the winning bid. It is all about meeting the tender specs, not about being the best tool for the job. If the tender spec is wrong, you end up with a wrong solution and that is the customer's problem and not the suppliers.

If the "requirements as originally intended" were translated in a poor tender spec, then the C-295W is still the winning bid and the guys who wrote the spec are at fault. Awarding the tender to a company based on a spec different from the tender spec leads to a lawsuit which will be lost. This happened with Boeing vs Airbus in the US Tanker bid where Boeing successfully sued for losing a tender based on factors other than those in the tender spec. I personally think the A330MRTT was the better tool for the job, but Boeing met the tender spec at a lower cost and therefore was the rightful winner.